HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Education and Children's Services (Enrolment and Attendance) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 28 October 2025.)

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, this will be your first question.

Mr TELFER: Indeed, it has been a much-anticipated committee stage. I do not have a lot of questions on this one, just enough to create a bit of clarity and certainty, because there are some aspects—I have sort of covered it in my second reading contribution—that I think need clarity. I will start with the short title, because it comes down to the nub of enrolment and that is covered within the short title. This is specifically about homeschooling, the requirements that homeschooling families currently have and what these additional changes might mean for those families.

Only on the weekend, I was watching 60 Minutes, I think it was, about the increase in the number of families that are choosing to homeschool in Australia. I know that South Australia is similar, and it is something that the education department, I am sure, has been very aware of. How do these new attendance and reporting requirements impact those students who are homeschooled? Will home educators be subject to the same reporting requirements as school principals?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That is a very fair question. Your observations around the rise in homeschooling are correct. It is certainly something I am watching very closely. It is not just a South Australian or an Australian trend. It is a global trend, which is a concern to me, I must say. I think it is driven largely by people who feel that they cannot get what their family or their children need at a school, whether it is a public, Catholic or independent school, which is not something that any education minister wants to hear. In terms of what is in here, nothing will change from the current arrangements for families who choose to homeschool their children.

Mr TELFER: So, when it comes to accountability and reporting of families that choose to homeschool their children, within this legislation there are obviously requirements when it comes to enrolment and reporting, etc. What are the current arrangements then that homeschooling families are required to conform with, and what measures are being put in place to protect those who are educating their children at home?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Currently, the requirement is that they are enrolled. Of course, a valid homeschool enrolment counts as that, and that is essentially where the requirement ends.

Mr TELFER: 'A valid homeschool enrolment.' Can you explain that to me, minister? That does not quite make sense.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The longstanding arrangement has been and continues to be in South Australia that to homeschool you need to be enrolled in a school, but then the education department through that school considers an application for homeschool and then if it is approved that is how people are homeschooled in the valid sense under the current arrangements, and that will not be changed by this.

Mr TELFER: Can I clarify that there is a requirement for a student to be enrolled in a school—are there homeschool families whose children are not enrolled in a school? With the shake of ahead, an indication. So the ones within the system that the education department knows about, they are the ones who have enrolled in a school and they have an exemption to homeschool?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I will provide a bit more detail, but, just to reiterate, we are not seeking to change the arrangements on this at all. That is not the intention of the bill and these arrangements have stayed the same. In South Australia, all children of compulsory school age are required to be enrolled in a school. For the purposes of homeschooling, a parent may, by application to the department, then seek an exemption from the requirement that their child attend the school in which they are enrolled.

Relevant information about the child is collected through the application process and if it is granted—which I think is the same in every state and territory in Australia—on review of the exemption, which generally occurs once every 12 months, it is the responsibility of the parent of the child granted an exemption to provide a planned and regularly implemented education program that meets the goals of the Australian curriculum with appropriate resources and learning environment, including opportunities for the child's social interaction.

The welfare and safety of the child is a priority and the department may, where necessary, consult with the Department for Child Protection and other relevant agencies in relation to an application for exemption for homeschooling. Current arrangements for homeschooling in South Australia are considered as part of the review into non-mainstream schooling options, which is currently underway. The result of that review is anticipated to be reported back in 2026.

The CHAIR: Supplementary?

Mr TELFER: Supplementary to this one, thank you, sir. Just for clarification on that answer: so there is nothing within this Education and Children's Services (Enrolment and Attendance) Amendment Bill that changes the existing arrangements for homeschooling families?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That's correct.

Mr McBRIDE: It has got me inquisitive. My apologies, minister, that I never heard your second reading on this to describe why you are doing this. But one of the questions I have—because I have just glanced over the amendment that we are looking at—is straightaway the short title. Can I just say I am a big supporter of children engaging in education in any way, shape or form possible for that social skill of actual integration, which is so important beyond year 12.

What I was going to ask you then, minister, is it looks like this is a strengthening of attendance and enrolment of children through the education system, and what I cannot see, unless I am blind and I might be overlooking something is: minister, what are you going to do when parents say, 'I do not want to have my children educated through this process and I think the school is damaging my child.'?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: If I understand your question correctly, if there is a scenario where a child is not being homeschooled in the way that I set out in my answer to the question from the member for Flinders and is also either enrolled at a school in the traditional sense and not attending that school, or not enrolled in a school at all, then the provisions that we are seeking to strengthen through this amendment bill will apply.

You mentioned that you had not heard the second reading speeches—that's fine. The crux of what I said in that was around these new, stronger, tougher provisions in this bill really being targeted at parents, grandparents, caregivers who are actively standing in the way of their child going to school, so not a case of parents doing absolutely everything they can who just cannot get their child to school because school refusal is a real thing. I have spoken to a number of parents who are constituents in the seat that I represent who, if you all had the opportunity to meet them, you would regard them as great parents who really care about the interests of their child and are doing everything they can to get them to school, but just cannot do it. So obviously these kinds of provisions are not going to help that situation because the parent is already doing everything they can.

This is really targeted at the pointy end. Sadly, some of these parents do exist who are actually actively stopping their kid from going to school. That is what these are there for—and to have some other steps in place like statutory warning letters and things like that as we build up to a process, which hopefully we get to avoid, where we go towards prosecuting that parent.

Sometimes when we go through what is a pretty torturous process to do that, fortunately I think once they see the whites of our eyes and realise that we are serious the child goes back to school, but not always. This is around having some other steps there. But it is certainly not about targeting parents or families who are really trying to get their child there and doing everything they can, because there would be no benefit in doing that.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TELFER: This clause insures against the commencement of prosecution of a parent until a written notice is provided. Can you walk me through what, if any, impact this change will have on the process for commencing prosecution against a parent who has not enrolled their child in school? Do you envision this would result in any significant delay to commencing prosecution where it is deemed necessary?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thanks, member for Flinders. I think I understand your question correctly around warning letters. Currently, we can send warning letters but do not have to. In conferring with my colleague, I think the evidence we have shows that in some cases warning letters can actually work: in those cases where parents probably realise how seriously the matter is being taken and that we are willing to go further if the child or children do not attend school.

What we are doing here is seeking to have essentially a mandatory statutory warning letter as a step that we have to do before we head towards prosecution. I think that serves two purposes: it is probably the prudent thing to do to let families know that we are heading towards potentially a court process but of course, as you no doubt have worked out, hopefully it also might result in the behavioural response we want, which is for the kid to manage to go back to school because the parent has realised that we are not mucking around.

Mr TELFER: Do we know how many South Australian compulsory-age children are currently not enrolled in school?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: We will have to take it on notice. I will endeavour to find you an answer, but I do not know. If we look at attendance rates, with the exception of the dip from COVID—and we are now heading back to the pre-COVID levels—they have been pretty static. I think enrolment numbers, generally speaking, are fairly static as well, but I would have to go away and try to find an answer on whether we know the number of students who are actually not enrolled in a school. I understand the importance of the question.

Mr TELFER: I understand that it might be a hard number to get hard data on, but I appreciate you taking it on notice. When it comes to the nub of this aspect in particular, this is the size of the cohort that we are changing legislation to try to add that step in. It could be a small number and you could have kids that are enrolled but are not attending, but this is specifically around that non-enrolment number. I do not know if it is a big one or a small one or whatever, so it is interesting.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I would suggest it is a growing number.

Mr TELFER: Yes, and this is the interesting aspect of why we are considering legislation like this. What is the range of penalties that could be imposed on parents for non-enrolment of a child at school?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand it is a maximum of $5,000, but they would have to be prosecuted for that to happen and the court would then decide whether they apply the maximum or a lower figure beneath the $5,000 maximum.

Mr TELFER: For clarification—and we appreciate your flexibility, Mr Chair—I am curious, minister, that there are more and more transient or travelling families in Australia and those who may not necessarily have a fixed address. How does the South Australian education department manage the full-time holiday-makers who may say their home base is South Australia or wherever else but they could be in our state and are choosing to school their children themselves on the road. How is that managed, or is that just a bit of a blind spot for the education department?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The short answer is it is difficult and there are lots of those scenarios, although some are very legitimate where people might pack the family up in the caravan and do the big lap or something like that. In that case, they need to be enrolled in a school but then can get the exemption—and this happens quite frequently—to do the homeschooling. So poor old mum and dad will be stuck in the caravan with the kids trying to teach them maths and stuff while they are travelling around Australia. There are ways of dealing with that.

However, I would say in cases that you identified where they might be moving from interstate to South Australia and are not enrolled, that can be more difficult to track. We actually have seen in some very rare cases people trying to use that as a bit of a loophole to try to avoid any repercussions for not having a child enrolled in any kind of school.

Mr McBRIDE: In clause 3, children of compulsory school age must enrol in school. What sort of numbers of students do you think you are going to capture by these new amendments, and then what changes do you suppose might show the success of these amendments in the years to come?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am trying, through these amendments, to be able to more swiftly deal with cases of parents who are actively preventing their children from going to school because, sadly, they do exist. They are not a huge number but, in my view, they are significant. My view of these things is that, if you lose three or four years of schooling, you do not get that back and you may never recover from that, from a learning or academic sense or even the ability to make friends, get a job and all those kind of things. So, in my view, it is very serious.

We currently have the ability to prosecute. I would describe that process as torturous, to be honest, and it has been of enormous frustration to me as minister in my 3½ years about how difficult that has been. Although I will say that I have really pushed this. I have really pushed it hard as minister. I get very regular updates on cases. I ask for a meeting and I say, 'What are we doing on this case and this case and this case?' I can say, pleasingly, that in a lot of those, because of the sheer effort and amount of work that the department has done and we have done, often the child does go back. But there is a big amount of effort to get to the point where that family realises that we are not backing down.

My view is there needs to be an easier way, because there is absolutely no question from the outset in our minds, in the school's mind or in the department's mind that these are people who fit the category of actively stopping their kids from going to school. The problem is often the burden of evidence, really, in terms of being able to make the case in court, and what we are seeking here is to find a swifter way of being able to deal with cases like that.

Mr McBRIDE: One that comes to mind that no doubt the minister would be aware of is the huge difficulty around Indigenous children and their truancy, where they are not attending school. I have even heard of cases where the local pool can be banned for students not attending school. They say, 'No school, no pool.' Are any of these changes and amendments going to pick up and perhaps address Indigenous students' lack of attendance that we know exists today in remote communities and maybe not so remote communities?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The short answer is no, mostly because I do not think what we are proposing in this case would work in those scenarios. The example you gave about 'No pool, no school' has been something that has been done, and it works, because we have tried to find a way of encouraging Aboriginal kids, who are generally over-represented in some of these figures, to really have school as a place they love and want to be.

Particularly on the lands, where it can be so hot, the community pool is important. I have made a big effort as minister and the department has done brilliant work in actually getting all those pools open. It is a very difficult thing to do, but I am really proud we got that done, because not only is it something for the community to have when it is stinking hot but I know it is a real benefit for the school in terms of encouraging kids to be in there as often as they can. So it is not really the intent of this, but there are other things we are doing to focus on trying to lift Aboriginal student engagement and attendance as well.

Mr McBRIDE: I thank the minister for the two responses. This one is going to be a little bit out of left field, but I feel like I have to ask it. It is with respect to the questions that were coming from the member for Flinders; he was talking in a curious, interested way about homeschooling. I do not know a lot about the homeschooling model, nor do I know a lot about the successes of it or lack of success to suggest that even exists—I do not even have the answer there.

I do know there are students who go through School of the Air and who do all that they can with modern technology. It used to be the radio, now I would imagine it is computers, IT and Teams-type schooling and education, and still nothing beats the interaction in a classroom and school for that confidence and mixing and socialisation that students learn from early education right through to the end.

Does the minister have any data on the difference between students who are either homeschooled or in School of the Air and the academic outcomes from those types of models compared to any student who would attend primary school or area school and high school and finish year 12?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: It is actually a very good question, I have to say. I have thought about this myself in terms of the growth in homeschooling. I just worry about the quality of that. I know those parents would say, 'Well, we worry about the quality of what they are getting in a traditional school,' and I understand what they are saying, but I just worry for the kids in this case around what they get.

I cannot answer that here. I could seek information. I am sure the department does a fair bit of work—and nationally—around tracking academic achievement rates between School of the Air, traditional bricks and mortar schools or homeschooling or whatever it might be. So I will endeavour to get that, but I have to say it is something that has weighed on my mind, particularly in light of the growth of non-traditional schooling. I would like to think it is not going to have a deleterious effect on the children, but I think it is probably something we have to start doing a better job of tracking, given the way the trend is going.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, clause 4 is very similar to clause 3, just nuanced somewhat. It is effectively identical but talking about an approved learning program. I want to explore a bit more the written notices aspect. You mentioned in your second reading explanation—which I did review; it was very good—that there is a clear delineation between supportive and punitive approaches to non-enrolment and that would be outlined in the written notice. Can you provide us with an example of what that will look like? What sort of supports perhaps will be included in the written notification, and will they be tailored to the individual needs or will it be a proforma that is delivered to parents in that situation?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Again, that is a good question. What I can say is that the statutory letter itself will be a form letter, but up until then there will be what I would describe as a mountain of work done to try to get that child to school, which will be tailored directly to them. I am not exaggerating in terms of the amount of effort that goes in there starting probably from classroom teacher, then maybe a deputy principal and principal, and then an education director, all the way up as we go through our truancy officers and all that sort of thing. A big effort is made, but the direct answer to your question is that, once we get to the statutory warning letter, it will be a form letter.

Mr TELFER: In reviewing the second reading explanation, which I did with great interest, you spoke about recent trials of the process of a warning notice. I quote from your second reading explanation:

Recent trials of this process have demonstrated that receipt of a warning notice can also result in a parent taking steps to ensure their child is enrolled and avoids the need for commencement of prosecution.

You have touched on this a bit, but can you be more specific and expand perhaps on the results of those trials? Were they trials done in South Australia? Can you unpack the results of those trials with a bit more detail for us, please?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am happy to give you some specific information about this. Since September last year, four families have received letters about the non-enrolment of their children. Following those communications, all children from the four families with non-enrolment issues were subsequently enrolled. It is only four cases, but I think we have shown that it can actually work, hence its inclusion in here.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, it has been proven that a concept could work—only a minor detail. What exactly do you envision will be included in a written notice, and how will it be delivered? Will it be an email, will it be a letter, will it be posted on the door of a house? What do you envision that process for that communication will be? In these circumstances, we could envision that there could be some pretty vulnerable children in some pretty challenging situations, whether they are housing challenges across different dwellings or otherwise. What will be the actual formal process of delivery, and what do you envision will be included within a written notice?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That is a sensible and fair question. I have been informed it has to be delivered by registered mail, given the seriousness and importance of the letter. It will outline the person's obligations in respect of the child's enrolment and warn the person that if they are not in compliance with the act they may be prosecuted if the child is not enrolled as required by subsection (1).

Mr TELFER: I have a quick supplementary and just some clarification on that one. Registered mail is good in theory, but, like I say, we envision there could potentially be children in some pretty challenging situations and may not necessarily have a mailbox for registered mail to go to or that sort of thing. Even the department may not have an understanding or knowledge of what that address could be, even if they do have one. I do not see there is an easy answer. It is probably a challenge that will have to be developed as the written notice process goes through.

I could envision a situation where there would not be an address to send registered mail to. How will that be communicated in a situation where you have a kid who is not going to school and you do not have that direct connection or the enrolment information? How do you envision getting that process fine-tuned in some of those more precarious, vulnerable situations?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thanks member for Flinders. I acknowledge the issues you are raising and you are right. In cases like this where it has got to this really pointy end, we could be talking about some pretty pronounced dysfunction in the home—all sorts of stuff.

I would say that we are restricted somewhat by the requirement to be able to prove, if it proceeded to prosecution, that the parent in that case actually received the letter, and obviously registered mail ticks that box. I have also been informed that we could use a process server, which I know you will be familiar with. Do not take that the wrong way.

Mr Telfer interjecting:

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That's right. I did not mean it in any other way. We could use a process server if there were issues with the registered mail, so there are those two options. If we had to take that next step and if they said, 'We didn't get a letter,' we would be able to show, 'Well, actually you did get a letter.'

Mr McBRIDE: Just following on from the member for Flinders' question about certified mail, I was thinking of the Indigenous issues that may exist out there with a certified letter that cannot turn up to a letterbox and perhaps cannot even turn up to the town because they do not have a mailbox or a post office.

Would the government consider tougher penalties for parents not forcing their children into an education system when two or three issues might exist that I know the government would love to change, bringing an end to generational lack of jobs and work life and the like. We know that education breaks this cycle.

An idea might be that parents who are not going to engage in any education at all that is fit for children should be considered for the cashless card program that we tried to roll out in South Australia, in Ceduna and Port Augusta, or where you have a cycle, which could be more than one generation long, of parents who have never worked in the workforce or completed any education and just see the government process of living as a way of life. We know—I know and you know, minister—that education is the biggest barrier or perhaps stepping stone to break that cycle.

When the member for Flinders talks about a certified letter, (1) do the parents even have a mailbox, (2) can they read, (3) will they take notice of it if they do read? In the end you are trying to get these children educated. Do you have rules in place that are tough enough to change the issues that we are trying to raise here and I believe you are trying to change here, too, minister.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I think I understand what you are getting at in terms of the scenarios where it might be harder to communicate the things that we are trying to communicate through devices like a statutory warning letter. The advice I can give the house is when the department identifies that a family does not use English as their first language or, for instance, cannot read, which sadly is a real thing, appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that warning letters are provided in the family's preferred language or that there is support provided to explain the matter. The department's bilingual and cultural support team would assist with translation services for families who use English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D). So far it has not been required, but I would envisage there will be cases in the future where it is and, if that eventuates, then we are prepared.

Mr BASHAM: Just a follow-up to the question from the member for Flinders: in relation to the Australia Post registered mail scenario, I know that my 15 year old signs for registered mail at the door. Is it the intent that the mail will be sent person to person at that higher level of registered mail?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand the scenario, member for Finniss. What I am advised is that it would be directed specifically to the person who would potentially be facing prosecution if the behaviour does not change, so in this case it would be a specific parent I would imagine, and that person would have to sign for the registered mail. Or, in the case of us using a process server, the process server would have to serve the document on that named individual. You are right, I am sure there are lots of families where someone signs for it when they come. This would have to be signed by the person who is named in the letter or the person named in whatever is being served by the process server.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, in regard to this clause 4—Children of compulsory education age: what do your amendments really do—and believe me, I support you—for children in early age learning coming to our education system, three and four year olds? I am not sure whether it covers those levels or ages. Where does it finish? Back in my day, when I finished school in 1986, some students could leave at the age of 15, in year 10 or year 11, and go into a trade. What sort of education are you suggesting that you are making compulsory and where is the starting point limit?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Clause 4, I think, deals with the provisions around needing to be enrolled in an approved learning program up until the age of, or when you are 16. So at the age of 17 you could essentially choose and be allowed to not be enrolled in an approved learning program. The words 'approved learning program' are used because it might not be school. They might be in a VET course or a range of other things. That is the current arrangement as dealt with by clause 4.

Mr McBRIDE: I was just going to ask the minister: in regard to these amendments, and comparing the South Australian education act, where do we sit with the other states of Australia with the compulsory attendance at school or some sort of education enrolment? Where do we sit not only in regard to legislation, and the way it is legalised or managed or written, but in regard to truancy? Are we a state that is lagging or are we a state that is in front of the other states by higher attendance rates and higher enrolments than other jurisdictions around Australia?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Good question and I have recent data to answer that. I might have foreshadowed it in an answer to an earlier question from the member for Flinders in terms of the attendance rates in South Australia. I released data only a few weeks ago to show that we have had our third consecutive increase heading up into the high 80 per cents for attendance, which is still below what it was pre-COVID but we are on our way to get back there. Actually, for one of the first times in a long time, South Australia is above the national average in terms of attendance. It took a big hit during COVID. Post-COVID, I would characterise it as recovering quicker than other jurisdictions and it puts us above the national average. We still have a fair way to go before we at least get back to those attendance levels before COVID hit, but we are on the right path.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr TELFER: Minister, could you please outline what sort of information may be required relating to a child in this aspect. This is around the clause where the chief executive may require further information. What sort of information do you envisage will be required relating to a child?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Perhaps I will give a couple of examples. If a parent we are in contact with to try to encourage them to get their kid to school and they are perhaps saying, 'My child is too ill and not attending school,' this gives the chief executive the power, if he or she sees fit, to ask, for instance, for a medical certificate.

If it is less around physical health and more around emotional social wellbeing or mental health, they can ask for reports from other medical experts just to substantiate that because, sadly, I have no doubt, there have been some examples where a parent might use that as an excuse when it might not actually be the truth. The chief executive might need the power to ask for something to substantiate a long period of absence, as actually being due to a medical condition or something like that. We are not trying to ask for anything that is really breaching privacy but we cannot have situations where parents are hiding behind that excuse and saying their child is not able to go to school when in actual fact they are perfectly well and capable of attending school.

Mr TELFER: Paragraph (d), minister, speaks about 'any other personal information relating to a child.' It is pretty broad. You have given a narrow expectation in your previous explanation. Paragraph (d) really does broaden out that possibility. What do you envision would be included in 'any other personal information relating to a child,' that is not already encapsulated within (a), (b) or (c)? What is acceptable for the chief executive to require and what is not?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That is a good question and that is a live scenario as well. The provisions that we are debating here today do stipulate the nature of the information that the chief executive is able to request as additional information, as follows:

being information or documents in the possession of a person that is reasonably required in the administration, operation or enforcement of the Act.

So for 'reasonably required', it is best to answer with an example that was given to me. If the parent says they are enrolled in an interstate school, which sadly has been used as an excuse before, the chief executive might ask them to produce information that substantiates that they are actually enrolled in that school interstate.

Mr TELFER: So the wording that you just quoted is not included within the legislation as put, or am I missing it somewhere? Is this the intention, or might that sort of more specific wording be included within a regulation? Once again, I say that paragraph (d) is pretty broad. It is even broader than what it was before, where it was 'or other personal information relating to a child'. This is 'any other personal information relating to a child'. It is pretty broad, so can you provide some clarification on that answer where that specificity is actually included?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The bit I read out about 'reasonably required' is already in the act. We are not seeking to amend that. That is staying the same. In subclause (2), the (a), (b), (c) and (d) go through those examples of information that might be sought. We have put that in there to be clearer and more transparent around what that is so people understand what the information that the chief executive may seek is. But the bit that requires it to be 'reasonably required', which of course is a test that the court could apply if need be and say, 'This information the chief executive asked for we do not believe is reasonably required,' is already in there and will remain.

Mr McBRIDE: I have a new helper in the parliament who has a really good question for the minister. Maybe he has a future in politics. Sam asks, 'How long do you have to be away from school to have to go to homeschool?' It is very pertinent in regard to clause 5, where it talks about what the limiting factors are around medical certificates, mental health and emotional and other issues that students go through. So, if a student was not at school and things turned sour or bad, how long can they be away from school before they have to start the homeschool program, or perhaps, may I say, they get the nasty certified letter in the mail?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: It is obviously a very learned young person who suggested that question to you, member for MacKillop. I am very impressed. An application for homeschooling can essentially be made at any time and, as I was reminded, there are staff within the department to help in that process of applying and then if it is approved it can start straight away.

In terms of when the provisions that we are looking to insert into the act that we are debating here this evening might kick in, I think it is best characterised by saying that, when all the other things we do—and as I have said, there are a lot—are exhausted and have not worked, we would turn to this, and that process is a pretty thorough one around all the things that might happen at school. I could talk for half an hour solely about the things a school might do to support a child and their family and then it might grow outside of the school site to those in the broader education partnership—education directors' involvement, truancy officers, statutory warning letter, all those kind of things. These things sort of kick in once the other things that we have done have failed.

Mr McBRIDE: May I just pick up on this brilliant question that came from Sam. No doubt, minister, with your passion for education and the changes I think you are looking for by these amendments, what is in place before these amendments roll out must be too cumbersome, too slow, not working for the students and not working for the families.

I really have a problem with rolling out more legislation or amendments—and no doubt you will too—that do not work. The intent here is to solve and fix. The question was brilliant, and it is a question that Sam just asked: for how long does a student have to sit on the sidelines and be held back from education? You used an example earlier of a student who misses four years of school, and do they ever recover?

No doubt you want to see a speedier process than the four years. Do you have anything in mind? If this process works, and you see a group of students miss education, lose education for a number of years, and then all of a sudden here we are—here is the golden print that takes it from that four years to 12 months, or four years to two years, or four years to six months. If this is a success and the processes are used correctly and accordingly, and you know that a student has suddenly fallen off the cliff of education enrolment, there are obviously these processes of, 'Where is Johnny? Why isn't Johnny at school?'

I do not know whether there are knocks on the door about truancy by the principal, the teacher or the education department, but I imagine you would like a change, which is why you are doing this, of speedier rectification of what I have just alluded to. As our guest in the Speaker's Gallery alluded to, how long do you have to wait before this sort of process kicks in and works?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: If I understand your question correctly, it is around when, in individual cases, the new provisions, if they would pass, are used. It will be at the discretion of the department, but there is the need to go through all of the other steps first. I did not mention before family conferences, which is an important step which we have maintained. They have been shown to work as well, so that might be another step in there.

The experts that we have out in the field, like truancy officers, like the school that might have that relationship with the family, will have a pretty accurate idea early in the piece about whether or not those other supports are likely to succeed. Is the family genuinely engaging in it? Are they resistant? If it is the latter, perhaps we move to using some of these new provisions quicker than in a case where we think the parent who might be looking at prosecution is making a genuine attempt to change their ways and support their kid to go to school.

There is always a bit of judgement that has to be in there, because every case is different. One of the things I know well, having done this job for 3½ years, is that schools know their students, and schools know their families. No-one knows them better. I put lot of trust in the professional judgement of those staff around when it is the right time to ease back or when it might be needed to go full throttle on the new powers that this would give us.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr TELFER: Clause 6 is an amendment of section 68—Child of compulsory school age must attend school. I draw your attention to subclause (2), which reduces the notification period required for parents to inform principals of their child's non-attendance from five to three days, which obviously is significant. We have had concerns raised with us that that constrained notification period could potentially unfairly impact disadvantaged families. Can the minister address the concern about that change that we have heard and outline what, if any, proactive steps schools will be obliged to take prior to the chief executive issuing a written notice?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: A bit of consideration has been given to this and I think it is important to say from the outset that what we are requiring here is notification to the school or the principal. That is all we are requiring. We are not saying that absences from school beyond three days are not allowed; we are saying that within the three-day threshold you need to let the principal know.

It might be that Sam's loving great-great-aunt has passed away in Queensland and the family is going up there for the funeral and will be away for six days, or in this case let's say four days, then we now need to notify the principal. That is all it is. We are not seeking to curtail people's ability to travel or do all those kind of important things. It is just around bringing us in line with the policy expectation we already have in public schools from our staff about when they will follow up with family.

I do not want families to think this means we are preventing them doing some of those important family things that you do, it is just around us setting the expectation that we want kids at school as often as we can. As I said in an answer to the member for MacKillop's question before, I am very cognisant doing this job that if you lose a year of your schooling, it is a massive gap that you may not recover from. Even that cumulative effect of losing bunches of days here and there can be really detrimental to your learning.

Post-COVID it took a hit and it has been a slow return back to those pre-COVID numbers. It is about setting the expectation that you need to be at school and having schools do that proactive stuff which sends a message to families that if you are away for more than three days, you just have to let us know.

Mr TELFER: The comparison between the range of penalties that could be imposed for non-attendance versus the non-enrolment, the two aspects that we are sort of looking at, what are the range of penalties that could be imposed for the child's non-attendance as opposed to the non-enrolment? Do they differ?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The maximum penalty that could be issued for a child's failure to attend school is $5,000. However, it will be up to the court to determine what any final penalty should be. This could be up to $5,000 for each offence for which the person is found guilty. It might be a fine of a lesser amount. A conviction may or may not be recorded depending on the offender's circumstances. The court has discretion to order community service in lieu of a monetary penalty.

Mr TELFER: The clarification of that is that it is the same range basically for the non-enrolment as for the non-attendance?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That is correct.

Mr McBRIDE: Regarding this compulsory turning up to school, I was just thinking that if I were a student 40 or 50 years ago attending the Coomandook Area School and there were a couple of big burly characters there by the name of Mr Simmons and Mr Pederick, I might not want to turn up at that school because I was being bullied.

On a more serious note, I do have constituents in MacKillop, some families/children who are feeling very isolated and intimidated probably by teachers and student peers. Has the minister anything in place? I am with the minister: I know the value of education. I am actually talking about primary school students being intimidated by going to school in some cases. You can already see that the families that these children belong to have had a hard life and been to the school of hard knocks.

This is one of the areas in which it would be good to be proactive. If a student is going to avoid going to school because they get anxiety and they can be sick and they can be scared and the whole education process can be overwhelming, then mum and dad become concerned, the education does not work, and all of a sudden it goes from four days at school to three days at school per week, and then maybe even less and so forth as it drops off. This is such a young age.

Minister, the question to you is: I know that you are putting in some strong amendments to make sure that students turn up for all the right reasons, but sometimes already in the schoolyard it is not working for some students, and we have had letters like this. Is there anything in place that can give us some confidence that you have not only some good rules here that we are now looking at, and amendments to impose a stronger enforcement for parents to get their children to school, but there is something in the background to make it more enticing for students and family who are intimidated, feel scared or feel that the education system does not work for them?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. Your point really gets to the heart of the things that are driving growth in non-traditional education, whether it is homeschool or some non-traditional bricks-and-mortar schools, all of which are growing in popularity. We are seeing more of those right around the world, including here in South Australia. I touched upon earlier that a lot of the kinds of scenarios you just covered—including whatever the member for Hammond might have done at Coomandook Area School back in the day—where families feel like they are not dealt with properly, lead them to pull their kids out of school and choose homeschool or something else.

My brief response to that is that, if there is one single theme that I could point to that I have tried to build upon in my time as minister more than any other, it is the link between student wellbeing and academic achievement. For far too long we have thought these two things are totally separate. We think there is a wellbeing conversation that is airy-fairy, namby-pamby kind of stuff, or something that we should not talk about, and we think it is not at all linked to how kids will go when they sit down and do their NAPLAN test. That to me is insanity—it is insanity.

If you asked an adult who was amidst a bout of anxiety, depression or whatever it might be to sit down and do any kind of test and expect them to be their best, we would all laugh at that notion, but in schools we think that the collective wellbeing of the kids in it and the staff teaching them is on the decline like this—mental health amongst young people is in the toilet, essentially—but still we should see academic results going like this. It is nuts, it is just nuts. The two things are linked.

You want better results, you want us to lift in international PISA schools, you want South Australia to do better in NAPLAN? I will tell you that the metric that has gone down is their wellbeing, their engagement, their sense of belonging at school and their mental health, and it is a lot of that stuff that sits behind them sitting down at school and not being ready to learn, not being in a position to learn, and playing out as lack of attendance, lack of engagement, poor behaviour in the classroom—all those sorts of things that we always talk about.

We have to address it through these kinds of things, and the by-product of that will be those families, if we do it better—the ones you spoke about who might say, 'This is not for my kids. Something has gone wrong in the playground and I don't feel it has been properly handled. They're being bullied. School's not for them, I'm pulling them out.' We have got to get better at that stuff, because it is not just about school attendance but it is about what I am afraid is a growing kind of prevailing view that you are better off homeschooling your kids, and I do not agree with that—I do not.

I understand that a lot of parents who have taken that route feel that they did not have a choice, and instead of being defensive we need to look at that and look inwards and say, 'Right. If that's the view of all these parents, a growing number of parents, what do we change? What do we change?' We are doing a lot of that, but it is a very good point because the stuff you pointed out is the stuff that sits behind the trend where more kids are not at school.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr TELFER: Minister, in this clause, similar to the previous one, section 69(3)(a) is being amended to remove one of the valid reasons for a child not to attend school. The provision in question allows a child not to attend school if there is a danger of the child being affected by an infectious or contagious disease. Given your comments in your second reading speech, that this is apparently a provision that is unique to South Australia, what advice have you relied on for the removal of this provision at this time?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: As you correctly pointed out, we are the only jurisdiction that has that clause. The advice I have—and this was an amendment proposed, I believe, by the department; it was not one that came from me, although I support it—is that the provisions of the Public Health Act already cover those kinds of scenarios where parents feel that they might need to prevent their child from being at school for one of those reasons, and that this is not necessary. In the circumstance that a child could not safely attend school due to the fact they are immunocompromised, a parent could rely on the reason in section 68(3)(a)(i), that the child was sick or infirm.

Schools in the department will continue to promote and comply with SA Health guidance on the management of infectious diseases at schools, including recommended periods of exclusion, and comply with any relevant directions of the Chief Public Health Officer and the South Australian Public Health Act 2011.

So we felt that that existed in the act, that we are the only place in Australia that had it in the act, and that the provisions of the South Australian Public Health Act already cover those scenarios.

Mr TELFER: So there are no additional risks that students with disabilities or compromised immune systems could be caught out by the removal of this as a valid reason?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The advice I have is: no.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr TELFER: While simple in nature, this clause is a fairly significant increase, really, in the powers of authorised officers to require information on school-age children at a residential premises to be provided.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Sorry, member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: It is alright. I will start again. On face value, minister, this is a minor change in the number of words that are being changed, but it is a pretty significant increase, really, in the powers of the authorised officers to require information on school-age children in a residential premises to be provided, rather than simply to request it. What advice was provided to the minister in relation to the necessity for these increased powers?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand that the discrepancy we currently have is that this information can already be required in public, but it cannot be in a residential home. We are just aligning the two things. The power does already exist, just not at the residential home.

Mr TELFER: The wording of this clause differs slightly from the powers of authorised officers who observe a compulsory school-age child in public. In that subsection, an officer 'may' require certain information, but in this amendment the qualifier 'may' is not included. It talks about 'require'. Is this a conscious change intended to provide increased powers to officers attending residential premises rather than in public? If you could explain the rationale to dispel any potential community concerns, that certainly would be appreciated.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The advice I have is that in terms of the requirement or otherwise it is that 'An authorised officer may at any time attend at residential premises,' and in terms of the current provisions for a public place 'the officer may require the child to provide,' so we do think the language is aligned in both with 'may'. In part 12, section 127 under 'Authorised officers' is 'Powers of authorised officers', which says:

(1) If an authorised officer observes a person in a public place who appears to the officer to be a child of compulsory school age or a child of compulsory education age at a time when such a child should normally be attending school or participating in an approved learning program…the officer may require the child to provide—

and then (a), (b) and (c). In terms of what we are seeking to align with residential premises, it is:

(4) An authorised officer may at any time attend at residential premises and require any person in the premises to provide the officer with—

(a), (b) and (c). I can tell you that the intention is for them to be aligned. We are not seeking to give them powers over and above what they currently have for the public place at a residential place. It is just to align the two.

I have to say, it does seem like a discrepancy that is a bit hard to understand. It might be a historical thing, that you could come across a child who looks of compulsory school age out and about on the street and you could demand them to say something, but you cannot go to the house of someone you know has not been to school for six months and ask the same information. It is about us aligning those two things.

Mr TELFER: The clarity was that the 'may' in that sentence is 'may attend' and 'require', rather than 'may attend' and 'may require'. That is I think, hopefully, in the development of the implementation, reflecting as they will, I am sure, on the words of the minister, the intent that will be reflected.

Just one more question on this one, minister. I guess it is really about that assurance on whoever is reflecting on this, whether it is the department or otherwise. Can you provide assurance that the expansion of these powers will not result in overreach? How will the limits of authorised officers' powers be clearly defined so that we can avoid any concerns of overreach?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: That is a fair question given that these are strong powers and they get to the heart of what we are trying to do here. But what I would say is that Section 127 basically codifies what they could ask for, and I think protects against overreach, so talking about (a), (b) and (c), full name of each child, age of each such child, school or approved learning program, etc. It is actually defined and set out in terms of what can be, and that is done for a reason and it gets to your question around making it clear that there are things that can be asked and there are things that cannot be asked.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills, Minister for Police) (21:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.